pages: CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-09-21 | 10 | the County's obligation under State law to provide ambulance services, which specifically includes ALS and BLS services; she is not clear whether County counsel has seen her attorney-client privileged opinion provided to Council; the County is obligated under State law to provide ALS service one way or another; the breakdown has been in negotiating a reasonable cost; the breakdown has extended for five years; granting counties sole authority to set parameters and standards as well as provide EMS services, specifically ALS service, would be anomalous under State law; nothing in State law allows a county to collect service fees from a city. Mayor Johnson requested that Mr. Briscoe obtain an opinion on the issue from County counsel. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to meet with County staff, the Mayor, and County Supervisor to flesh out legal opinions on both sides, provide cost and service level breakdowns, report back to Council in Closed Session regarding legal opinions before the next Council meeting, and discuss the issue in open session to provide direction on options with additional points of added clarity regarding finances and detailed service levels. Councilmember Gilmore stated Council sees the issue as a very high priority; that she understands the matter is a legal issue, but Council needs to get past the matter; health, life, and safety are at stake; the community needs to have the comfort that someone will be there when a 911 call is placed; a Contract needs to be executed. Councilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion is one of process to get more information, negotiate, and come back to Council. The City Attorney responded no action could be taken on the item. Councilmember Matarrese restated that his motion is to give direction to have the County Supervisor, Mayor, and staff flush out financial and legal obligations, bring the matter back to Council in Closed Session to discuss legal obligations and strategies, and come back to discuss and take action on the matter in open session at the next Council meeting. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter to come back sooner rather than later; various funding mechanisms would need to be determined if the Contract goes forward. Mayor Johnson inquired whether direction is clear, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the $857,000 cannot be taken lightly. Councilmember Gilmore stated the $857,000 is not the only issue. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 September 21, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf |